Solution: All review processes of the Klimik Journal are conducted through an online system. We do not accept revisions or evaluations from authors and reviewers via e-mail. Therefore, the reviewers are required to submit the corrections via online submission system by logging on the system with the provided user IDs and passwords, and they should not send any document via e-mail. When the name of the manuscript in an individual's page is clicked, a pop-up window will appear showing the file name and pdf icon next to it, and the users can use the line numbers in the pdf file when they click on this pdf icon. The authors should specify the line number and the requested revision for the relevant line. For example: Line 66 - "The most frequent factors that we encounter" to be replaced by "The most frequently encountered factors"

System Administrator shall provide assistance when the authors send their requests to receive assistance to the following e-mail addresses about problems they encounter while submitting revised documents: klimikdergisi@gmail.com or info@klimik.dergisi.org.

Solution: Replies sent to e-mail messages that contain notification as "Please do not reply this e-mail. You are required to send your response through the online submission system by logging in with your user ID and password. Any response to this message will not be processed" do not reach the recipient. All users are required to send their messages via online system by logging in with their user IDs and passwords or directly send their messages to klimikdergisi@gmail.com or info@klimik.dergisi.org.

Problem: I am being asked to remove information from the cover letter of the manuscript. Is not this section only visible to the Editor?

Solution: Our reviewers can display the author’s responses to the reviewer's comments in the cover letter. Information regarding name, affiliation and city shall not be contained in the manuscript and should also be removed from the cover letter as required by the confidentiality principle in the review process.

Solution: The reviewers are required to fill both "Notes to the Editor" and "Notes to the Author" sections in the designated fields. Remarks written in the "Notes to the Editor" section cannot be displayed by the author. If the Editor chooses to forward the notes written in the "Notes to the Editor" and "Notes to the Author" sections as they are already written, "Notes to the Author" section is displayed as a blank page if left blank. However if the reviewer has written the notes in the "Notes to the Editor" section and "Notes to the Author" section has been unintentionally left blank, then the editor can copy and paste these notes into his section and deliver to the author.

Problem: Withdrawal of a previously submitted manuscript for revision purposes.

Solution: Withdrawal process applies only to the manuscripts of which the authors requested withdrawal after submission. When the authors wish to make revisions for their manuscripts we offer our assistance if they send their requests to klimikdergisi@gmail.com or info@klimik.dergisi.org instead of withdrawing their manuscripts.

Problem: I receive e-mail notification to perform evaluation although I have already performed.

Solution: The review process would appear to be incomplete if "Send Review Report" button is not clicked. It appears as "no decision has been done yet". If these steps are not completed, the system will continue sending reminders. The reviewer is supposed to select his/her decision in the "Your final decision" section, complete "Notes to the Author" section, and click "Send Review Report" button. Otherwise, the review report will not be transferred to the review process and would remain incomplete although the report has already been recorded in the system.

Solution: Delays in review process of the manuscripts rejected particularly by the editor encourage unnecessary hope for the publication of the manuscript and cause a more profound disappointment when the authors are eventually notified of the rejection. This also causes a negative effect for our journal. The manuscript editor should take initiative and take timely actions.

Problem: Two different reviewers’ opinions, one indicating the publication of the manuscript while the other indicates the rejection.

Solution: It would always be the editor to take the initiative. Editors are not obliged to accept papers if the editor deems that the paper is imprecisely prepared and not well-written, not appropriate for the scope of the journal, do not contribute to literature or if it is deemed that it would not be possible to make a conclusion even if the revisions have been made although they were adjudicated as acceptable by the reviewers. The editor should take initiative.

Problem: Delayed revision requests and suggestions that supposed to be made at the initial steps.

Solution: The editors should place their comments and ask for the revision of important points as soon as possible before the approval of the manuscript; for example, quoting directly from another source without acknowledging its source.